shape
carat
color
clarity

Contrast Brilliance/Scintillation and the Isee2 Technology

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
This is a portion of a new tutorial regarding my most recent research into the issues of contrast brilliance/scintillation and the Isee2 technology. While hot topics are being posted on the issue of cut I couldn't think of a more appropriate time to post this article and I wanted my friends on PriceScope to be able to read it first.




Leonid, please feel free to edit/change/add out portions you deem inappropriate.




Contrast Brilliance & Scintillation and a more indepth look at the Isee2 Technology.






The Isee2 technology measures 3 elements regarding cut quality and the diamonds beauty. Those three elements are brilliance, scintillation & symmetry. Before I begin to introduce you to the analysis this technology performs it is important to introduce you to some new concepts concerning brilliance, scintillation & symmetry that you may or may not be familiar with.



I am going to ask that you remove from your mind anything you've learned about diamond brilliance for a moment and walk with me as we think outside the box for a moment.



Contrast Brilliance & Scintillation



Brilliance:



There is an element to brilliance within diamonds that relates to the contrast seen between facets reflecting back light vs facets reflecting back other elements that are blocking light (ie. your head or body blocking light from behind which the diamond is reflecting within). To demonstrate this point of contrast I'd like to use a few examples to illustrate.



This first example illustrates 2 checker board patterns. The board on the left has an extreme degree of contrast (black and white squares)
while the board on the right is the same exact graphic except with reduced contrast, thus changing the colors to different shades of gray.

Sit back from your computer for a moment and gaze at your screen. One of these checker boards is brighter, more brilliant and attracts the
eye more than the other. You are now beginning to grasp the concept of contrast brilliance.


blackwhitecontrast.gif
graycontrast.gif



Another example I can point to is the contrast setting on your television set. When you increase the contrast your picture becomes brighter and more brilliant.
The graphics above are also depicting this aspect of brilliance as well but you don't see the pixels blown up to this level on your television set. However if you were to look at it on a blown up pixel by pixel basis you'd observe the element we are demonstrating above.

This is important in diamond beauty and brilliance because when diamonds are observed in diffuse/office light conditions the laymen is observing one of 3 phenomena.



  • Facets reflecting back white light.
  • Facets reflecting back objects blocking the light (like the shadow of your head/body blocking light).
  • Light leakage (which would reduce contrast).

It is important to understand that diamonds take on a completely different appearance in diffuse/ambient/office light conditions than they do in stronger direct light conditions. Strong direct light conditions emphasize fire (or colored light return) and scintillation within a diamond and is dependant upon the strength and intensity of the light return through the crown of the diamond as depicted in this graphic. We perform optical analysis which represent diamond beauty in these light conditions but this is NOT what the Isee2 is analyzing as it's analysis is done in diffuse light conditions.



DSCN0092.jpg



Take the same super ideal diamond away from the strong lights (like sunlight, halogens, etc.) and into softer light conditions (office/diffuse/ambient) and now you would be primarily observing the contrast between white light return and areas reflecting back things that are blocking the light. This graphic taken in office light conditions demonstrates the point. Next to it is a diamond with poor contrast brilliance/scintillation. There is a clear observable distinction between these 2 diamonds that the average laymen can easily distinguish.





HAvsNONID.jpg



Differing views



Indeed this tutorial is not the first article written on the subject of contrast brilliance, it is however a slightly different concept from that offered by others within the gemological field. Reference is made to it by our friends at Moscow State University (reflected in the DiamCalc software as well) and from Peter Yantzer (CEO of AGS Laboratories) view contrast brilliance slightly different although we are all primarily on the same frequency. The contrast they depict is what is also being considered in this study but also that of light return vs light leakage, hence in the DiamCalc software a diamond is rewarded with a higher "contrast brilliance" score when more leakage exists. This does not make sense to me since in my analysis and study of this subject; light leakage contributes to less contrast since there are less reflective surfaces off the pavilion facets, not greater contrast. The more leakage that exists the more dismal the diamond will appear under both diffuse and direct light conditions. I would propose to my gemological friends that the most attractive and appealing contrast is not that of light return vs light leakage but that of pavilion facets reflecting back light vs pavilion facets reflecting back shadows of what is blocking light (ie. head obstruction, etc). So the contrast is that of lights/darks only. Light leakage detracts from this light/dark contrast since there are no reflections back to the viewer except what is seen underneath the diamond. Large portions of light leakage contribute to the decrease of contrast brilliance, not enhance it.



Scintillation:



While contrast brilliance focuses on the depth of lights/darks reflected back from within the stone, contrast scintillation focuses on the amount of and points of contrast that exist within the stone. Ie... Are we looking at a checkerboard pattern that consists of 24 squares or 100 squares? The more points of contrast that exist within the diamond the more scintillating it will be in diffuse light conditions.



All of the subject diamonds we have tested for contrast scintillation have been those of 57-58 facet rounds brilliants. There are rounds that have been introduced on the market with more facets than this. I would be curious to test properly proportioned rounds with more facets than the standard to see if their scintillation scores are higher (ie. more squares on the checkerboard = more scintillation theory). I would assume this to be the case but don't know until I test em.



contrastscint.gif
blackwhitecontrast.gif



These are the elements of brilliance & scintillation that the Isee2 Analysis is performing and correlates perfectly with human eye observation under those conditions.



The reason this is important to the consumer and ultimately the beauty of the diamond is because soft light conditions are perhaps the most common conditions which most people observe diamonds under.



My studies have also shown me that the intensity of light being reflected within the diamond is not as critical as it is in direct light conditions.



In direct light conditions the amount of fire and scintillation observed is dependant upon how much light is primarily being directed at high and medium angles (high angles are from 76° to 90° (observer head), medium angles are from 45° to 75° and low angles are from 0° to 44°)1. We can observe this phenomenon in our LightScope technology which shows us plainly the blacks, and contrast between dark and pale reds. Blacks and dark reds representing the high and medium angles.



In softer light conditions light being reflected at the lower angles (0° to 44° or light reds in LightScope) plays a more prominent role and doesn’t affect the reduction in light return as much in these conditions because in softer light conditions we are primarily observing moreso the element of reflective/non-reflective surfaces.



A diamond that demonstrates this point is this stone.



BR125FSI1-LTSCOPE.jpg



You can plainly see the pale reds under the table which demonstrates areas within the diamond that reflect light weaker than other areas that are in dark red & black. This affects to a degree it’s performance in direct light conditions which is reflected in it’s BrillianceScope results…

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]ath>

however, although weak, they still are reflective surfaces on the pavilion and in softer light conditions contribute to the reflective properties of the diamond in those conditions. The stone has excellent contrast and it’s surfaces are still acting as reflectors, couple that with it’s outstanding symmetry and you can understand why it gets an Isee2 score of 9.8



br125fsi1nic2.jpg



The point is all reflective surfaces within the diamond, both weak and strong, contribute to the contrast brilliance/scintillation within the diamond. Blatant leakage (whites in LightScope) contribute to it’s decrease in contrast.



Illuminating the Diamond's Checkerboard



Note how the facets on the diamond on the left all correspond perfectly with regards to their black/white illumination. Every internal reflection is illuminated to the identical color of it's opposite corresponding reflection. Where you see black on one side you see black on the other. Where you see white on one side you see white on the other. The depth of contrast is top of the line. Not only the depth but the amount of blacks/whites is superior among those within round brilliants contributing to the very high scintillation score. Lastly, this optical symmetry pattern is insanely consistent facet by facet, reflection by reflection. The obvious difference is seen in the 2nd graphic and represents more common cut qualities on the market.



br184dific2.jpg
Picture7.jpg



Symmetry:



Lastly the Isee2 Analysis grades symmetry. The symmetry being analyzed however is not that which is traditionally thought of with regards to symmetry grading as done by the labs (GIA, AGS, etc.). The symmetry being analyzed on the Isee2 is that of optical symmetry. Facet alignment on a 3 dimensional, optical scale. We already perform this type of analysis when we photograph our Hearts & Arrows diamonds. The difference is this is taking this analysis into the digital realm and putting a technical eye to the subject of optical symmetry and grading it digitally. Considering the 2 types of symmetry grading (lab graded 2 dimensional symmetry, vs optical/digital graded 3 dimensional symmetry) I can tell you with all confidence which of the 2 affects diamond beauty more and that is the 3d symmetry.



For more details on lab graded symmetry I refer you to this link. http://www.goodoldgold.com/symmetry.htm



Optical Symmetry:



Two ways we currently analyze optical symmetry is through the H&A viewer (called by various names) and through our own LightScope viewer. Each viewer shows us different aspects about the optical symmetry & design of the diamond.



The example below depicts 2 diamonds that have a high degree of internal relflective/refractive properties (both have minimal leakage), however one is severely lacking in optical symmetry while the other is far superior. One of these diamonds took approx. an hour to cut while the other took approx. 4 hours. Both of these diamonds are valued quite differently as well and for good reason. Certain cut grading tools on the market (the HCA & the BrillianceScope) do not take into account this aspect of craftsmanship which could mistakenly lead a person to believe that 2 stones are of equal beauty or value when the case can in fact be the exact opposite.



DSCN1718.jpg
br101gvs1ls.jpg



This is one of the most important features of the Isee2 technology. It puts a technical eye to superior craftsmanship and rewards the diamond accordingly.



Here is the Isee2 Analysis on the 2 diamonds above.



opticalsymmetryic2.jpg



Lastly, optical symmetry analysis would not be complete with a view to the pavilion side. This is done through the H&A viewer which shows optical symmetry through both the crown & the pavilion.



gogha.jpg



Assigning a Numerical Cut Grade:



The Isee2 Analysis, after looking at the features of brilliance, scintillation & symmetry calculates a final numerical score ranging from 0.0 to 10.0. However the device is designed not to give any diamond a score higher than 9.8. Our experience has shown us that the most excellently cut diamonds range in their Isee2 scores from the high 8's to over 9's. We generally limit our purchasing to diamonds with Isee2 scores over 9.






[/i]
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
I've put together some FAQ's on this subject already based on questions I've received in the past. Any good questions posed here I'd like to include so whatever questions ya'll have on the subject don't hesitate to ask.




Kind regards,


Rhino
 

Hodne

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
95
Good job on this article Rhino!!!
appl.gif
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Great job.
Now my question,
To get high defused lighting scores on a test like Isee2
is there a compromise in direct light performance or
is it possible to have both?

Second question:
If you used the bscope and hca to select 100 diamonds with
the top class scores on each both how many would get rejected
as not getting a 9 or better on Isee2?
If you add a hearts and arrows viewer into the pre-selection
mix how many would be rejected?
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Thanks Hodne,




The greatest challenge was being able to write/communicate in a way that the average laymen can understand. I hope that I have kept it simple enough for the average laymen to grasp.




Thanks for the questions strmrdr. My answers will be between your questions.




----------------
On 12/6/2003 6:23:01 PM strmrdr wrote:











Great job.
Now my question,
To get high defused lighting scores on a test like Isee2
is there a compromise in direct light performance or
is it possible to have both?

It is possible to have both. In softer light conditions the emphasis is not on how intense/less intense light return is through the crown but the emphasis is based more on the fact of whether a pavilion/crown facet combo is acting as a reflector or a leaker and the direction in which it is reflecting light back to the observer. There must be a nice balance of contrast within the diamond.



An excellent example of a stone with poor contrast would be what's considered a "nail head" diamond. Diamonds that are nailheads appear primarily dark under the table which would reduce contrast (where's a graphic of a nailhead when I need one?).



In BrillianceScope (direct light) testing the results are based primarily on the quantity and intensity of light coming through the crown. This is observed in the blacks and contrast of dark/light reds observed in LightScope tech. A diamond with a nice saturation of blacks and dark reds will get excellent B'scope results.

Second question:
If you used the bscope and hca to select 100 diamonds with
the top class scores on each both how many would get rejected
as not getting a 9 or better on Isee2?

Yawza. 100 stones! When I think of the most common diamonds being sold there are very few that have optical qualities to get *both* a great HCA and Brilliancescope results. Most of them would fall into the *excellent IS image and excellent B'scope results" because of reflective/refractive properties and proportions and perhaps have IS images similar to this.



DSCN5709.JPG



If this is the case then out of that 100 very few to none would get Isee2 scores over a 9 since the Isee2 also looks at quality of craftsmanship and the aspect of optical symmetry.



So in short, great HCA scores and great BrillianceScope results are no guarantee that the stone will get high marks via Isee2 technology because the Isee2 also looks at the precision to which the diamond has been cut optically on a facet by facet, reflection by reflection basis. This is one of the major differences between this technology and all those introduced in the past. Cutters who take their time to craft a well cut stone (which takes approx. 4x longer than common stones) are rewarded with the appropriate score. A weakness, IMO of the BrillianceScope and the HCA which could lead a person to believe 2 diamonds are of same value & beauty when indeed they are not.




If you add a hearts and arrows viewer into the pre-selection
mix how many would be rejected?

Now you'd be narrowing down the mix even more but increasing your chances of higher results. Let me also state that the Isee2 is not so ridiculous that it rates diamonds as *bad* what we have perhaps preconceived to be bad. For example a diamond does not have to be a *perfect H&A* to get excellent results (although the H&A's we'll select will have excellent results).

Take this stone for example.



DSCN9274.jpg



It is an AGS "0" triple ideal cut diamond. It is NOT an H&A stone yet scores over a 9 because it does have high optical symmetry and very little leakage and the stone is indeed a beauty! What this teaches us however is that the H&A images are still important to the optical analysis but the Isee2 is focusing on *face up* contrast brilliance/scintillation/symmetry and not so much how perfect the hearts pattern may be on a diamond.



At the same time let me state that when we went to the Isee2 conference there were branded H&A's there scoring in the 7's and 8's which would be unacceptable to us for H&A diamonds.


Thanks for the questions strmrdr.



Regards,



Rhino

 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Thank you for the answers.
If you dont mind I have some more.
I realise this is a busy time off year for you so if you would like to hold off answering thats fine.

At what point do the Isee2 result differences become visible?
ie: will a 9.7 diamond be visibly different from one that scores 9.8.
how about:
9.5 vs 9.8
9.1 vs 9.8
8.0 vs 9.0
other?

Would it be possible at some point to compare a high 9 diamond to a low 9 diamond using both Isee2 and the results of your usual tests?
With the results for both right under each other to make it easy to compare.
How about the same with a low 8 Isee2 diamond vs a high 9+ one?

How repeatable are the Isee2 results ?
Have you ran the same diamond multiple times on different days to test the repeatability of the machine?
What is the claimed variation accuracy for the device?

If you could have just 1 electronic tool for selecting certified diamonds what would it be?
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Hi Strmrdr,





Scroll on down between the lines.




----------------
On 12/6/2003 9:14:34 PM strmrdr wrote:











Thank you for the answers.
If you dont mind I have some more.
I realise this is a busy time off year for you so if you would like to hold off answering thats fine.

I'm off today so no problemo.
1.gif


At what point do the Isee2 result differences become visible?
ie: will a 9.7 diamond be visibly different from one that scores 9.8.

No.




how about:
9.5 vs 9.8
9.1 vs 9.8

On the scale from 0.0 - 9.8 it is almost impossible to distinguish the differences in diamonds over 9 and even the high 8's. When a stone dips into the 8's however I can generally always point out the reason why through our LightScope analysis.

8.0 vs 9.0
other?

In diamonds that score an 8 vs a 9 or over you'll start to see differences.

Would it be possible at some point to compare a high 9 diamond to a low 9 diamond using both Isee2 and the results of your usual tests?

Yes. I'd link you but I am forbidden to do this. One aspect that I am focusing on now is how the Isee2 responds to diamonds with similar proportions yet vary in their minor facet cutting.



Here are some of those results side by side though (thanks to Leonid making this copy and paste thing such a snap!)



On the left is a 9.8 next to a 9.0



DSCN2012.jpg
BR140EVS1-LTSC.jpg



and Isee2 results.



br160dific2.jpg
140evs1-isee2.jpg



In short, this is another excellent tool in our arsenal to help us cherry pick even among the H&A's. One thing I would note however is that the comparison above is not that of a pretty diamond vs an ugly diamond. I would also point out that even the diamond used in the tutorial that had good reflective properties by no means is an *ugly* stone (the one that scored a 7.8, as the diamond did display high marks for brilliance & scintillation but you could plainly see from it's LightScope analysis that it lacked that aspect of craftsmanship via it's optical symmetry).

With the results for both right under each other to make it easy to compare.
How about the same with a low 8 Isee2 diamond vs a high 9+ one?

Here ya go. The stone on the left is a stone being advertised as an H&A that we ran some tests on and the stone on the right is an actual Isee2 diamond. (btw... all Isee2 diamonds score over a 9 and are H&A).



DSCNe9601.jpg
BR97GVS2-LTSC2.jpg



br123fvs2ic2.jpg
br97gvs2-isee2.jpg



Imagine my thoughts when a major brand was scoring in the 7's and 8's!

How repeatable are the Isee2 results ?

Very repeatable. The most I've seen results deviate were by .2. If they do deviate at all it's usually within .1 but most of the time do not deviate at all.

Have you ran the same diamond multiple times on different days to test the repeatability of the machine?

Yep.

What is the claimed variation accuracy for the device?

That one I'll have to run by the manufacturer.

If you could have just 1 electronic tool for selecting certified diamonds what would it be?

Hmm... excellent question but your answer would be the Isee2. The reason I say this is because I have correlated LightScope analysis with BrillianceScope analysis on hundreds of diamonds that I can pretty much tell you what the BrillianceScope results will be on a stone by it's LightScope image. There are different nuances with regards to contrast that I am still in the process of learning. I remember hearing about it back in the diamondtalk days when Gary started talking about it and I am learning alot with this technology about diamonds that I never knew before, particularly about their appearance in the softer light conditions. Of course I love having both technologies because what BrillianceScope results are to the diamonds appearance in direct light conditions, the Isee2 is to softer light conditions and people observe diamonds more in softer light conditions than they do direct light conditions. PLUS I appreciate the fact that this rewards the diamond whose cutter has taken the time to craft a superior product as opposed to the diamond that was kicked out in an hour.

Thanks for the questions Strm.

Rhino





----------------
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
It appears you have done your homework.
Working in the computer field it is rare usually it is
all slick marketing and very little to back it up.
That makes me extremely skeptical of reviews like this.

Do you have any links to other reviews of the Isee2?

Have there been published reviews that disagree with
your conclusions of the value of Isee2 results?

That’s all the questions I have for now.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer them.
 

verticalhorizon

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
840
Wouldn't a diamond with the least light leakage have the lowest internal contrast?

In diffuse/office lighting, a situation with lower fire/scintillation, then a diamond with the least light leakage would face up white/silver like a mirror. (I'm not saying this is bad.)

A diamond with acceptable, modest, leakage could produce more of a discernable variation or scintillation in diffuse lighting and perhaps even in more direct lighting.

That was my theory, but uncertain if it made any sense.
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340


Hi VH,



In answer to your questions....



----------------
On 5/17/2004 1:38:48 PM verticalhorizon wrote:











Wouldn't a diamond with the least light leakage have the lowest internal contrast?

Not necessarily. I have examples of diamonds (and have tested quite a few) with solid LS/IS/FS images (ie. no blatant leakage) that run the gamut regarding internal contrast. It is interesting to read this thread from December ... particularly where I state "There are different nuances with regards to contrast that I am still in the process of learning." One of those nuances was the shallow/shallow combo and the transitional 40.6 pavilion angle.

In diffuse/office lighting, a situation with lower fire/scintillation, then a diamond with the least light leakage would face up white/silver like a mirror. (I'm not saying this is bad.)

This is what has been the focus of our most recent study and which strmrdr and I have been discussing back and forth. It is regarding super ideal cut diamonds with little to no leakage and what impacts their appearance (positive/negative) in these softer light conditions. If you read further in this thread strmrdr brings up many questions in which I answer in detail and some graphics to demonstrate. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/which-would-you-choose.15402/

A diamond with acceptable, modest, leakage could produce more of a discernable variation or scintillation in diffuse lighting and perhaps even in more direct lighting.

That was my theory, but uncertain if it made any sense.

----------------
Read the pages at the link above and if this does not answer your question, clarify what you don't understand and I'll do my best to make it clear.
 

Ring101

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
29
Is there any relationship between the white light in B'scope and Brilliance in Isee2 chart? Is it safe to infer that a very high score in B'scope for (White Light) will have a very high Brilliance score in Isee2 chart.
 

quaeritur

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
1,238
Hello Rhino!

I was just revisiting this thread, and was wondering if you could include an ISee2 screen capture of an 8*. When I was in your store, we tested an 8* and though it took a hit on symmetry (with a 9.4 final score) it looked more to me like the program wasn't correctly interpreting the pattern of the 8*. It looked very different from one of your top H&As, but still very symmetrical, just in a different pattern. I've remained curious about this and would love to get your comments on it. And by the way, thanks for the WEALTH of info you continue to provide, I really appreciate it!!!
1.gif


Thanks in advance!
 

quaeritur

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
1,238
Hmmmm... it occurs to me that it might not be kosher to discuss any aspects of the EightStar on a public forum. If so, I withdraw the preceding question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top